Connecticut's Cities, Towns Likely To Get Less Federal Help For Emergency Preparations

New federal legislation cuts basic homeland security grants by more than 4 percent and favors larger states in competition for other money, meaning Connecticut's cities and towns could get less federal help for emergency preparations.

``It means municipalities will again be left with the responsibility of securing our communities largely by ourselves,'' said Robert Labanara, senior legislative associate at the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.

``The writing seems to be on the wall. The federal government is not adequately funding programs.''

States began receiving large sums from Washington for homeland security shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In fiscal 2003, Connecticut got $47.3 million, and the next year, received another $52.1 million.

But since then, the state has been hurt by several trends. With federal deficits soaring, domestic budget money has become more scarce, so homeland security funding nationwide was roughly flat from fiscal 2003 through 2006.

At the same time, politicians from states getting less money, particularly those outside the Northeast, began complaining they were not getting a fair share of the homeland security grants. And, prodded by homeland security experts, Washington began to look for ways to give out funds based on risk of terrorist attack.

So Connecticut's share began to shrink, first to $35. 2 million in 2005 and then to $16.1 million in 2006. In fiscal 2007, which began last month, the state could be cut another 4.3 percent.

Under the bill signed by Bush, Connecticut will be guaranteed only a small amount, and would then compete for other grants with other areas around the country.

While it's impossible to know what the state's final allocation will be, state officials are braced for another cut. The national pool of funds for basic state grants will be smaller, and Connecticut is virtually shut out of the competition for Urban Area Security Initiative grants, the federal government's biggest homeland security aid program.

That program, which will receive more money this year than in fiscal 2006, is geared toward higher-population, higher-risk areas, and Connecticut is considered neither.

State lawmakers understand the problem, but said there's little they can to do to help. ``We don't have a lot of chemical plants, or huge harbors, and we don't have a large population,'' said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

``We do have the corridor where tens of thousands of people pass through every day, but there's a feeling that any (terrorist) action against Connecticut would be a secondary action.''

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, called the trend in smaller state grants ``deeply disturbing.'' But he warned against calling the funding bill a predicament for Connecticut.

``I believe we have made real progress in strengthening our homeland security since 9/11,'' he said. The bill give the Department of Homeland Security new authority to regulate chemical facilities, for instance, and makes changes in how the embattled Federal Emergency Management Agency is run.

But analysts agree that the prospect of less money is likely to affect Connecticut in at least two ways.

It could slow the state's efforts at improving ``interoperability,'' or the ability of officials from different towns to communicate with one another. Such communication is considered crucial in an emergency.

``Progress has been made,'' said Labanara. ``Communication is good in some pockets of the state, but not all. The lack of money could be a hindrance to the state's plan to complete full interoperability.''

Lawmakers from all over the country have been making similar complaints for years. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has proposed creating a national interoperability system, and renewed the effort last month, but the idea has gone nowhere.

Instead, he said, police and fire officials will find they often have to use ``many of the same tactics as Paul Revere.''

But Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., a police officer before being elected to Congress in 2004, countered that while a national system is a worthy goal, ``there are less expensive but integral reforms that must first be implemented,'' such as uniform standards for first responders and state interoperability plans. Connecticut already has such a plan.

The 2007 spending bill will help state and local officials implement those reforms, he said, setting the stage for an eventual national system of interoperability grants.

But the money may not go directly to towns, as it has in the past. Currently, towns can either spend the grants themselves, or give it to a regional planning organization or the state to administer.

With less money, the regional groups may take control of the funds, making sure neighboring towns don't spend money on the same kind of sophisticated equipment, for instance.